SavedAdd your journal

Journals / ELT Research Journal / 2021 / Cilt: 10 - Sayı: 1

A Comparison of Arab and Turkish EFL Learners’ Apology Strategies

Eda ELMAS
Ali ÖZTÜFEKÇİ
Nihal ÖZDEMİR
Pages
1–26
Publication Date
2021-06-30
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Findings revealed that the most preferred strategy by both groups was reported to be that of Illocutionary Force Indicating Devices (IFIDs) and that their linguistic repertoire is influenced by factors such as their proficiency level.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The primary purpose of this study was to identify and compare apology strategies employed in English by Turkish and Arab EFL students.
📊
Key Findings & Data:To this end, this research study further attempted to indicate the preferences of apology strategies used by both groups, making a comparison between Turkish EFL learners’ and Arab EFL learners’ responses in terms of frequency of using different types of apology strategies.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Findings revealed that the most preferred strategy by both groups was reported to be that of Illocutionary Force Indicating Devices (IFIDs) and that their linguistic repertoire is influenced by factors such as their proficiency level.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:speech acts · apology strategies · EFL

Abstract

The primary purpose of this study was to identify and compare apology strategies employed in English by Turkish and Arab EFL students. To this end, this research study further attempted to indicate the preferences of apology strategies used by both groups, making a comparison between Turkish EFL learners’ and Arab EFL learners’ responses in terms of frequency of using different types of apology strategies. To this end, data were collected through a Discourse Completion Task (DCT) which afforded insights into how both Arab and Turkish EFL learners adopt apology strategies in their pragmatic competence in the target language. Findings revealed that the most preferred strategy by both groups was reported to be that of Illocutionary Force Indicating Devices (IFIDs) and that their linguistic repertoire is influenced by factors such as their proficiency level. Based on the findings of the study, further suggestions and implications are provided.

🔖

Cite This Article

ELMAS, E., ÖZTÜFEKÇİ, A., ÖZDEMİR, N. (2021). A Comparison of Arab and Turkish EFL Learners’ Apology Strategies. ELT Research Journal, Cilt: 10 - Sayı: 1, 1–26. https://ajindex.com/articles/753948

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (10)

  1. Aydin, M. (2013). Cross cultural pragmatics: A study of apology speech acts by Turkish speakers, American English speakers and advance nonnative speakers of English in Turkey. [Unpublished master’s thesis]. Minnesota State University. Bachman, L. F., & Palmer, A. S. (1996). Language testing in practice: Designing and developing useful language tests (Vol. 1). Oxford University Press.
  2. Bardovi-Harlig, K. (2010). Exploring the pragmatics of interlanguage pragmatics: Definition by design. Pragmatics across languages and cultures, 7, 219-259.
  3. Bergman, M. L., & Kasper, G. (1991). The interlanguage of apologizing: Cross-cultural evidence. University of Hawai'i Working Papers in English as a Second Language, 10(2). Blum-Kulka, S., & Olshtain, E. (1984). Requests and apologies: A cross-cultural study of speech act realization patterns (CCSARP). Applied linguistics, 5(3), 196-213.
  4. Canale, M. (1983). From communicative competence to communicative language pedagogy. In Richards, J. C., & Schmidt, R. W. (Eds.), Language and Communication, 2-27. London: Longman. Canale, M. and Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics, 1(1), 1-47.
  5. Cohen, D. A., &. Olshtain, E. (1981). Developing a measure of sociocultural competence: The case of apology. Language Learning, 31(1), 113-134.
  6. Dalmau, M. S., & i Gotor, H. C. (2007). From “Sorry very much” to “I'm ever so sorry”: Acquisitional patterns in L2 apologies by Catalan learners of English. Intercultural Pragmatics, 4(2), 287-315.
  7. Deutschmann, M. (2006). Social variation in the use of apology formulae in the British national corpus. In A. Renouf & A. Kehoe (Eds.), The changing face of corpus linguistics (pp. 205–222). Amsterdam: Rodopi. Dörnyei, Z. (2007). Research methods in applied linguistics. New York: Oxford University Press.
  8. Gass, S. M., & J. Neu (1996). Speech acts across cultures: Challenges to communication in a second language. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Goffman, E. (1971).
  9. Remedial work. In Goffman, E. (Eds.), Relations in Public: The Micro politics of Public Order. Allen Lane, London. Çetin, H. (2014). A comparison of Pragmatic Competence Between Turkish and Portuguese EFL Learners via Speech Act Set of Apologies: A Task-Based Perspective. (Master’s thesis, Gazi University, Ankara, Turkey). Retrieved from https://dspace.gazi.edu.tr/bitstream/handle/20.500.12602/191686/?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
  10. Harlow, L. L. (1990). Do they mean what they say?